• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

How Many Errors Can You Make In 9,000 Words, More Or Less?

By Keith Paul Bishop on April 17, 2012 in California Securities Laws, Legislation

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) is a very modest 9,000+ words.  In comparison, the Dodd-Frank Act is a hefty 360,000+ words.  Thus, I find the number of technical errors in the JOBS Act to be surprising.  One such error is likely to cause some consternation.

Before there was a JOBS Act, a Dodd-Frank Act or even a Sarbanes-Oxley Act, there was a National Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA).  That act amended Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933 to preempt state authority to require registration or qualification of “covered securities”.  Section 18(b)(4) specifies that securities are covered securities with respect to a transaction that is exempt from registration under the Securities Act pursuant to specified statutes or SEC rules.  Among other things, Section 301 of the JOBS Act added a new Section 4(6) to the Securities Act to exempt crowdfunded securities (provided, of course, that specific conditions are met).  In Section 305(a) of the JOBS Act, Congress prevented the states from requiring qualification or registration of exempt crowdfunded securities by adding a reference to Section 4(6) in the list of exemptions in Section 18(b)(4).

In enacting the JOBS Act, Congress didn’t push the states entirely out of the picture.  In Section 18(c), Congress preserved state authority to investigate and bring fraud actions and to require notice filing of any document filed with the SEC.

Section 305(c) of the JOBS Act amended Section 18(c)(2) by adding a new subdivision (F).  This change is itself puzzling because there wasn’t, and Congress didn’t add, a subdivision (E).  More important, however, is the caption to new subdivision (F) – “Fees not Permitted on Crowdfunded Securities”.  This might lead one to conclude that Congress intended to preclude states from imposing fees with respect to offers and sales of crowdfunded securities that are exempt from registration under the Securities Act.  However, new subdivision (F) states “no filing or fee may be required with respect to any security that is a covered security pursuant to subsection (b)(4)(B)”.  Section 18(b)(4)(B) doesn’t deal with crowdfunding.  Rather refers to the preexisting Securities Act exemption for broker’s transactions.

The JOBS Act has made some unintended changes to the California Corporate Securities Law.  Section 25102.1(c) and (d) recognized federal preemption under the NSMIA by providing that offers and sales of securities pursuant to Section 18(b)(4)(C) and (D) are not subject to qualification under Sections 25110, 25120 and 25130.  However, when Congress added the reference to Section 4(6) in Section 18(b)(4), it didn’t simply tack it on to the end as a new subdivision (E).  Instead, it added the reference as a new subdivision (C) and renumbered the existing subdivisions (C) and (D) as (D) and (E).  Consequently, Section 25102.1(c) now refers the exemption created by Section 4(6) rather than Section 3(a) and Section 25102.1(d) now refers to the exemption created by Section 3(a) rather than rules or regulations issued under Section 4(2).

 

Dodd-Frankfederal preemptionJOBS Actnotice filingNSMIASarbanes-OxleySection 18(b)(4)Section 18(c)Section 25102.1
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Ever Wonder What Money Is? California Has Some Answers And I Have Some Questions
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • But Wait, California May Require Even More In Annual Reports To Shareholders
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

April 2012
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me